5 Truths About the Incarnation

Christmas is about the incarnation of Jesus. From God to man. Strip away the season’s hustle and bustle, the trees, the cookies, the extra pounds, and what remains is a humble birth story and a simultaneously stunning reality — the incarnation of the eternal Son of God.

This incarnation, God himself becoming human, is a glorious fact that is too often neglected, or forgotten, amidst all the gifts, get-togethers, pageants, and presents. Therefore, we would do well to think deeply about the incarnation, especially on this day.

Here are five biblical truths of the incarnation.

1. The Incarnation Was Not the Divine Son’s Beginning

The virgin conception and birth in Bethlehem does not mark the beginning of the Son of God. Rather, it marks the eternal Son entering physically into our world and becoming one of us. John Murray writes, “The doctrine of the incarnation is vitiated (ed., ruined) if it is conceived of as the beginning to be of the person of Christ. The incarnation means that he who never began to be in his specific identity as Son of God, began to be what he eternally was not” (quoted in John Frame, Systematic Theology, 883).

2. The Incarnation Shows Jesus’s Humility

Jesus is no typical king. Jesus didn’t come to be served. Instead, Jesus came to serve (Mark 10:45). His humility was on full display from the beginning to the end, from Bethlehem to Golgotha. Paul glories in the humility of Christ when he writes that, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8).

3. The Incarnation Fulfills Prophecy

The incarnation wasn’t random or accidental. It was predicted in the Old Testament and in accordance with God’s eternal plan. Perhaps the clearest text predicting the Messiah would be both human and God is Isaiah 9:6: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

In this verse, Isaiah sees a son that is to be born, and yet he is no ordinary son. His extraordinary names — Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace — point to his deity. And taken together — the son being born and his names — point to him being the God-man, Jesus Christ.

4. The Incarnation Is Mysterious

The Scriptures do not give us answers to all of our questions. Some things remain mysterious. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God,” Moses wrote, “but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Answering how it could be that one person could be both fully God and fully man is not a question that the Scriptures focus on. The early church fathers preserved this mystery at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) when they wrote that Jesus is “recognized in two natures [God and man], without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. The Incarnation Is Necessary for Salvation

The incarnation of Jesus does not save by itself, but it is an essential link in God’s plan of redemption. John Murray explains: “[T]he blood of Jesus is blood that has the requisite efficacy and virtue only by reason of the fact that he who is the Son, the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the express image of his substance, became himself also partaker of flesh and blood and thus was able by one sacrifice to perfect all those who are sanctified” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 14).
And the author to the Hebrews likewise writes that Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).

The incarnation displays the greatness of God. Our God is the eternal God who was born in a stable, not a distant, withdrawn God; our God is a humble, giving God, not a selfish, grabbing God; our God is a purposeful, planning God, not a random, reactionary God; our God is a God who is far above us and whose ways are not our ways, not a God we can put in a box and control; and our God is a God who redeems us by his blood, not a God who leaves us in our sin. Our God is great indeed!

Written by Joseph Scheumann, December 25, 2013

The Battle Between Mainline Liberal vs Evangelical Conservative Churches

My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "do Matthew 18 to brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their beliefs, these people are not members of the “church,” as Scripture defined it. And how do I privately approach these people in the first place? In my defense, too, St. Paul named names. In 1 Timothy 1:18–20, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight against false teachings. Paul specifically named Hymenaeus and Alexander as individuals that he helped throw out of the church because of their behavior. In his next letter to Timothy, Paul mentioned Hymenaeus again and added Philetus to the list of false teachers. Look also at Jude 4:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Should we allow people who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church, freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't like gossip; in that blog, I quoted public statements they've made. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the type of the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.

Anyway, in Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by Master of Theological Studies-educated Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my Reader’s Digest summary. I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s do the unfortunate task of naming some names. On a bigger scale this time. Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The dividing line, the real issue, is the authority of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. On the left, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Mainline “churches” who have these perverse beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of the above reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

Evangelical denominations include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online). Don’t get put off by people calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though most of them wear that badge proudly. Jesus said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12).

Here are the five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return. Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.

Mr. Putnam argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in a god). He quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement.” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” (As Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.”) Both heretical statements are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. They don’t believe in the God we know, and will have the same destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.

The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They surmise that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says it promotes slavery, demeans women, and it “says” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens, now deceased, killed way too many trees with his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to “the mob rules.” According to that “ethic,” the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just an immoral rabble-rouser. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, since the German citizens warned nobody when it went on under their noses. The majority were willing to be soldiers and kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—a no-no for them. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic.”

They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Quoting that verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride, anyhow.

Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, folks, one cannot say “racism is wrong” or “discriminating against homosexuals” is wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”

The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:

the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time in the argument, later on, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).

The author finally warns that “these ‘in name only’ Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter n"on-believers" with the sword? Religious people.

Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?

Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn

Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred Without Being Righteous?

Hopefully you read our first blog on atonement. We put forth the idea that the Classic view, by the earliest church fathers (who had more direct access to the apostles), was superior than the current “Satisfaction” view, put forth around 1080 by Anselm. Reasons were many, as we stated, and proved by Scripture. We proved, I believe, that the Satisfaction theory has a poor view of God, and an air of cheap grace about it.

Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” I have to have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what they did to “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first blog, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.

First, let’s define the word “impute.” Unger’s Expository Dictionary says: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account.” Basically, “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view stands behind are: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind, making us all guilty; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. (Note that the Satisfaction theory has changed the definition of impute to also mean a transfer from one person or party to another person or party).

Let’s look at the imputations one at a time. On the first leg: Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? If it is, then it is clearly a case of a cross-generational curse that the Satisfaction theory of atonement is attaching to God. Fortunately, Scripture denies it: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:19, 20 repeats this, here:

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity. Now you could argue that separate verses show God does cross-generational curses. Look at Exodus 20:5:

…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me…

This seems to say that God will curse two or three more generations after those who hate Him. But this is the opposite of what we saw in Ezekiel 18 above. Can Scripture contradict itself? No. The best explanation here is that the children hate God too--they learned it from their parents. So they get punished for that on their own. It’s a shame that children born into a family that hates God will have a lesser chance of making heaven than children born into a family that loves God. We can therefore philosophize that life isn’t fair. But we can’t conclude that God is responsible for such effects of sin. We all make choices to either sin or to be righteous and are responsible accordingly.

But the Satisfaction theory of atonement seems to have a gigantic generational curse—the guilt of Adam’s sin being transferred to all humanity?! Doesn’t that ring untrue about God, especially in the light of clear Scripture above? Well, you might ask, what other theory do you have? What did Adam transfer to humanity, if anything? Well, we do have an alternative theory, as we’ve mentioned in our first blog. According to the Classic theory of atonement, not his guilt, but (1) his mortality and (2) his corruption of a fallen nature; his tendency to sin were imputed to later generations. I think #1 (mortality) is because if we live in sin forever, our abilities to corrupt ourselves will have no limit. And sin would become immortal. Bad thought. I think in #2, Adam had a unique position: a perfect soul, a perfect communication with God. We, however, often choose to sin before we learn to walk. We seem born to say “no,” as any mother will tell you. And God is harder to access compared to Adam (but not far, Acts 17:27). Yes, there are differences between us and Adam. But here’s the merciful part of our story: God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins. We choose from all that wonderful love and mercy about what to do: Do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel day after day? We have choices to make, and mostly rational minds to make them. What’s important here is that the tendency to sin does not mean we’re beyond getting saved. That’s a far cry from the strange idea that God spread Adam’s guilt to all of us. You mean, we’ve got to pay for Adam’s sin, unless we seek deliverance for the guilt of his sin? Too bizarre.

But there are other favorite verses of the Satisfaction theorists. Such as Romans 5:12.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? Because “all sinned.” We are each responsible; we can’t blame Adam or God. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.

While we’re on Romans 5, I’d like to cite a verse in defense of the Classic theory, Romans 5:13:

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law

Now here’s my simple question (you debate-and logic-mongers out there should love this): If Adam’s sin was imputed to the whole human race, how is it that “sin is not imputed” in any case?

The Satisfaction theorists surmise that if God promised a penalty of death for Adam’s sin (Genesis 2:17), and if we all die, then it’s “clear,” according to them, that since we’re sharing in this penalty of death, we must be also sharing in his guilt. But let’s use good reasoning, folks. Why do we all die? Simply because we all sin. It has nothing to do with sharing Adam’s guilt. That’s a construct not based on Scripture.

There is an evangelism problem here, too, which makes this issue important. To some unsaved people, the problem that sticks in their craw with the Satisfaction theory from all this is the tendency to conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin.” But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement, only the mortality and the tendency to sin are passed on. (And God’s wonderful plan for redemption.) We’re guilty about just our own sin. Not Adam’s. Thus, the easy tendency to blame God is dispelled. The responsibility falls back on our own shoulders, where it belongs. That is, unless we want to blame Him for our bad choices; but that’s our warped thinking—affected by too much sinning in the past.

The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Let’s put on our thinking caps: In the phrase “as in Adam all die,” does it say, well, we all die because we have his guilt on us? No, you might infer that wild charge against God if you’re a Satisfaction theorist. It simply says death, or mortality, is indeed passed on—as the Classic theory says: Remember, we said that we don’t want sin to be immortal.

Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:

Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

Now I don’t have any argument here, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. Thank You, Lord. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement blog; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher, not God.) But in an abstract sense, it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord, so in the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good. Our salvation. (Blaming God for creating Satan and sin—remember, He created an angel with a choice, not Satan--is ‘way beyond the realm of our little paper.)

On to the third leg of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” sounds like it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; it strongly suggests that His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other blogs know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. Their proof of Christ’s righteousness being transferred to the non-holy? They quote Isaiah 53:4-5, as above. Wait, that’s a bigger stretch of imagination than I’ve seen to date. Where does it say His righteousness is automatically transferred to us in Isaiah 53? Nowhere. As we said, those verses are a detail of His substitutionary death—His paying for our sin. It does NOT “naturally follow” that His righteousness transfers to us as a result.

The Satisfaction theorists then have the audacity to say, in essence, that to have God expect us to behave righteously is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, teaches us, the Encyclopedia says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try “googling” the word “righteous” in the Old Testament (biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references, such as Genesis 7:1:

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

Over a hundred. Just like that one. Then, to beat a dead horse, google “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include untruths.

To be thorough, we have to explain more of their favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

This seems to contradict over a hundred Old Testament verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here? It is a prayer of penitence that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer does: When the repentant Jews petition God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness in comparison to the greatness of the Lord. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality: Does God have to agree with this version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times? (And there are more in the New Testament, Luke 1:5-6, etc). Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like this, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” If it makes you nervous, “have I been obedient enough,” you’re on the right track to a fear of God—and a saving relationship with Him. (See a recent blog). That God could treat us righteous despite His perfection, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

Yes, the last 26 words are tough to take, but compare that to the beautiful words about His mercy and patience. There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.

Maybe the best case for this third leg in the Satisfaction theory is in their third set of favorite verses, Romans 4: 2-11:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[a] 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt .5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

It hums along through verse 8, saying things like “him who does not work but believes on Him,” which seemingly says works are not a part of salvation. You can see why Martin Luther loved Romans and hated James, who made a case for works. But I have many blogs on this, and they say the same thing: Multitudes of Scripture clearly point out that while initial salvation is mostly faith, it takes confession, obedience to His commands, and abiding with Christ—“works,” if you like to call them—to maintain salvation. Paul echoes this over and over, and is not contradicting James at all.

Then what’s the key to understanding Romans 4? The key is in the “curve ball” Paul delivers in verses 9-11—this is the context for the whole section: Abraham’s faith was “accounted to Abraham” as righteous--while he was uncircumcised. This whole section is an argument against the need to circumsize the believing Gentiles, or make them follow Jewish rules. He is fighting the “Judaizers” here and elsewhere. The “works” indicated refer to Mosaic law: Jewish works like circumcision. Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised, so circumcising had nothing to do with his righteousness—or salvation. It asks: So, he asks, how are you ahead by circumcising the Gentiles? Paul quotes David, who blesses righteous men—who were declared righteous without any mention of Jewish “works.” So if Paul is talking all about being declared righteous without circumcision, what does it have to offer to support the Satisfaction theory of receiving Christ’s righteousness without (what we define as) “works,” or living a godly life? Nothing. Whenever Paul says “works don’t have a part in salvation,” he always means the Mosaic law. But he never says obedience to Christ has no part in salvation—just the opposite. In I Cor. 6:9-11, for example, Corinthian believers used to be unrighteous, having those ungodly traits, but they were washed, they were sanctified—they became righteous. Keep in mind, washing someone—getting the filth off them--is different than simply making a transfer in the books of heaven. They can “call” someone washed when they aren’t holy at all. Isn’t that what the Encyclopedia says about this leg of the Satisfaction theory, as I quoted it above (“His righteousness is set to their account” as soon as they are first saved)? There’s that cheap grace again. A genuine Christian IS holy, he’s not just “counted as” holy. Becoming a Christian transforms our lives, our souls, our very nature, when we’re truly born again. Folks, unlike what’s suggested by “cheap grace” Satisfaction theorists, a godly life is required for heaven.

Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.

Persecution: Figuring Out Who are the Good Guys and Bad Guys

I grew up when TV was first starting. My favorite shows were Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Hopalong Cassidy, Davy Crockett, Rifleman—all had good guys vs. bad guys. It was easy to figure out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. When I grew up, things got complicated and weren’t clear anymore. To show you what I mean, I’d like to tell you a story about the later medieval period. When who were the good guys and bad guys not only weren’t clear, but some of them changed from one to the other…

First, a definition: A good guy, now, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again. He is impassioned about his loyalties to Him—but, as Jesus commands, he does not hurt his enemies. Matthew 5:44:

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

If a guy doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy." Let's say he was violently brutal with his enemies, in a violent period. But we don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands. Then we know you're the good guy.

During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and they were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the Lollards and John Huss (followers of Bible translator John Wyclif). The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were long before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes. The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.

On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?

But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them. (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal suppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and had revealing sentences like the following: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience—but Luther felt he had to make clear which side he was on. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.

This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent plan of action for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s terrible rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. His works carried on long afterward, and he is quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.

Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:

“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.</b>

My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand—as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, came upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jews) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course—but it was not challenged by the Lutheran Reformers either. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to allow them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. Only the people who followed Christ, then, were the church. The civil court said “no” and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, Zwingli’s indecisiveness, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to read Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”

I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some strange beliefs—not taking oaths, not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they remained, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, the magistrates got their confiscated property, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their “radicalism” (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups were either drowned or tortured and burned at the stake. But even their enemies said what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine.

The story for the Anabaptists ends well, in a way: they are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Keep in mind, though: many thousands of them were murdered just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.

Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning. A cowardly act. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12. Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach things is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts:

“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements--but he did get some important changes to liturgy and doctrine. Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Stay away from the bad guy label, though.

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD